I say it's an epic fail because it violates one of the "big 3" laws of classic logic, the Law of Noncontradiction. It doesn't get more illogical than
that. (The blue letters are a clickable link saying the same thing)

Originally posted by MamaJ
Why do fear Jesus is not God, but our brother? He, like you have incarnated more than once. Im not trying to fool you in the least! We are ALL sons
and daughters of God!

We are NOT all sons of God. The Bible clearly states:

John 1:12
Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

You must first believe and receive Him to get the right to become His children.

From my point of view. She is right that ALL will get it in the end. And you are right that ALL do not know they are so called "children" of god
(children is really a lie because it is to simplistic of a description of what we are to god but it can work as an anology).

MamaJ: I am sending the same message back to you.

Just because John tells it is so does not make it so, or from my point of view, John is simplyfying it to such a degree that it becomes a lie for most
human interactions with god. And frankly it is not up to John to make any rule about how god and the soul that is connecting to each other should do
it.

I wouldn't say John simplifies anything. If anything i'd say he is quite open and honest about what he means. In fact Jesus also alludes to not
everyone being children of God.

John 8:31-47

31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free.”

33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”

34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever,
but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Abraham’s Seed and Satan’s
37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My
Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”

39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the
truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent
Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of
your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a
lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you
convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because
you are not of God.”

If you turn away from the Word of God then you are not God's children. Creation perhaps but no child of God. This is why Jesus makes such
distinctions between those who believe in him, believe him and follow him. Those who do not, are not his. The next question is, how do you hear
God's words?

The Koran is a book of myths, fables and fairy tales and repeats fanciful
Arabian fables as if they were true.

THIS is how we KNOW that God is not the author...

Several years ago I was conversing with someone who claimed to be atheist, only among their atheist friends. We were discussing religion and I said
that I did not understand her questions regarding Orthodox Christianity and explained to her that many of the things she was charging against
Christianity should be placed solely against the Catholic Church but it was not how I was taught in my church growing up. I told her that there has
always been a group of Christians since the birth of Christianity that was never Catholic and could not be considered Orthodox. She said she had heard
that but never knew much about it because she had always been taught that the Catholic Church had existed since the Apostles and the various
Protestant sects came later after the Reformation.

I have always felt that I was of that doctrine of Peter, that the Rock on which the church was built was not Peter, but the testimony of Peter that
Jesus is the Son of the Living God. So growing up in my church, we were never taught such words as "Pauline" and "Apostolic Faith". These are
things I heard after I was grown. The concept of Pauline doctrine as the only basis of Christianity was not something I had ever heard. We were taught
that Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith, so therefore if we read something that Paul said, or Peter or any other Apostle or Disciple, we
needed to go see what Jesus said about that.

We were always taught that we are to bless and honor the Jews and Israel, because we were grafted into that already existing vine. We were not taught
Replacement Theology or Dispensationalism, those are things I only learned after I had grown up and from people outside my church.

We were taught that we were to live a life of holiness, but that holiness was not something we could achieve by our own actions, it was the work of
the Holy Ghost in our lives. So I think that I could not be considered Orthodox Christian. I do hold to the fundamental teachings that Jesus existed
eternally with the Father as part of the Godhead, He was eternally the Son and is the manifested Word of God. He came into this world for the purpose
of redemption for mankind and that He was baptized by John, He was crucified, died and resurrected with the promise at His ascension that He would
come back.

In fact, at the front of our church was a banner that said "Go ye therefore into all the world baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always" from Matthew 28. As a
young child, I understood the concept of teaching what Jesus commanded, so I pursued that knowledge of just exactly what Jesus commanded. When He said
"It is finished" He meant that He completed the purpose He was sent to do.

Therefore, because I have accepted Jesus Christ, have been born again and redeemed by Him, my allegiance is to Him. We were never taught December 25th
was His birthday, we just acknowledged that He was born for the purpose and His birth was worthy enough for all of heaven to celebrate, so we should
celebrate it as well. So if this is not Orthodoxy, then I am not Orthodox. When we read what Paul said, and this I would agree that Jesus approves is
that if any other person or angel comes preaching any other doctrine than what we have already received, count him accursed. Allah is a strange god
that I should not follow. Mohammed is a false messenger teaching the strange god, so I must count him accursed. Mohammed denied the crucifixion,
therefore denied the redemption. He missed it when he did not know the Bible says "This same Jesus you see going away will come again in like
manner". Not another Jesus, the same Jesus. He ascended bodily and stands bodily at the right hand of the Father. He is coming back the same way.
Jesus has not come back yet, so therefore we do not look for any other person.

I say it's an epic fail because it violates one of the "big 3" laws of classic logic, the Law of Noncontradiction. It doesn't get more illogical
than that. (The blue letters are a clickable link saying the same thing)

Murgatroid, I read the link you provided and it was very interesting. At least they provided the sources for whatever they said. The only one problem
I had was with their questioning of modern heresies. As growing up a Pentecostal (actually never heard that term either growing up), I was a little
puzzled by something. They propose Pentecostals believe the organization and the pastor is infallible.

That was not something I was ever taught, but then again I did not go to an organizational church, we were independent. We were taught that pastors
and teachers and prophets and everyone who sat in the church were very fallible. We were never taught to think of the pastor as anything more than
just a person with human flaws.

Maybe the Charismatics think that way, but not in my church. Maybe I came from a unique church, I don't know.

But that one puzzled me because I had never heard of that before. I am Sola Scriptura, never have known anything else. I think there might be a
difference in Pentecostal of modern churches and the Pentecostal I knew growing up. I don't watch tv preachers either. TBN is full of confusion, so I
would not say to watch it. I remember being in a church several years ago and watched as a girl went to get prayed for. She actually went into violent
spasms and I was shocked because this was a strange thing to me. Maybe what some people call Pentecostal is not really Pentecostalism, but a form of
it.

This person does not agree with tv preachers and does not think any preacher is infallible. If that preacher presents something contrary to the nature
and character of God, then I do not listen to them. Then I suppose I would not be Pentecostal, even though I believe that speaking in tongues is
simply part of the Pentecostal experience on the day of Pentecost. It is only one gift but not the most important one. I don't want to argue about
that one, you may believe it was only for the first people, I believe it is for all believers. Perhaps I am not Pentecostal, but I am certainly not of
the Reform Church, I am not Baptist, I am not any of those other things. What would you classify me as, because apparently I seem not to fit into any
of those groups?

Sola Scriptura with the Holy Ghost teaching me what the Bible means. That is what I believe.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
Sola Scriptura with the Holy Ghost teaching me what the Bible means. That is what I believe.

It's so nice to know that someone here is actually READING those quotes and links for a change.

Sola Scriptura with teaching from the Holy Ghost sounds totally awesome to me.

I would classify you as a REAL Christian.

Christians as a general rule don't really fit into any "groups" which is probably a good thing.

I had to look up Sola Scriptura:

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning
“writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.
The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Only if you consider Jesus a failure, because the OT God is who he really is. That was him on Mt. Sinai giving Moses the Law. That was him standing
there with Abraham the day Abraham got him to agree to sparing Sodom if 5 righteous men were found within. That was him standing there in front of
Joshua in Joshua 5 who told him to remove his shoes because he was on Holy ground. That was him talking with Samson's mother and it was him talking
to Gideon before Gideon set about avenging his brothers. That was him walking with Adam in the cool of the day and it was also him who appeared to the
slave girl Ha'gar who bore Ishmael. It was him standing in there in the blazing furnace with Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego in Daniel 3.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds..Being made so much
better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews1

I say it's an epic fail because it violates one of the "big 3" laws of classic logic, the Law of Noncontradiction. It doesn't get more illogical
than that. (The blue letters are a clickable link saying the same thing)

If you're a parent and you make a rule for your 10 year old child that they cannot drink alcohol, are you contradicting yourself when you drink
alcohol as an adult over the age of 21? Secondly, its been pointed out to you that the Hebrew word used implies "murder". A righteous, holy God
should punish rebellion and wickedness.

Did you read the link? Am I trying to teach chemistry to a fish here? Does Plato and his books belong in the trash? Heck, you don't respect
anything I have to say, I figured at least Plato could get some respect.

Btw i respect everything you say... i just don't agree with everything you say

That's why I link things. What did you learn by reading the law of noncontradiction link?

God allowed His own Son to be murdered who never once sinned against Him. Now what do you think He feels when a person purposely chooses to do
something that they know beforehand carries the death penalty and knows that God has already called an "abomination"?

Why is God not allowed to be righteous and holy? Or Sovereign over His own universe? And what about my question? Would you be a hypocrite when you
drank alcohol?

Btw i respect everything you say... i just don't agree with everything you say

That's why I link things. What did you learn by reading the law of noncontradiction link?

God allowed His own Son to be murdered who never once sinned against Him. Now what do you think He feels when a person purposely chooses to do
something that they know beforehand carries the death penalty and knows that God has already called an "abomination"?

Why is God not allowed to be righteous and holy? Or Sovereign over His own universe?

See thats the problem... God didn't make that law... man did.

People took it upon themselves to assume that God didn't like gay people, which is a lie obviously... Then also decided to extract punishment for
something they didn't agree with...

Now... you're calling the murder of innocent people, such as gay's, witches, and tons of other beliefs that don't coinside with yours
righteous?

We aren't talking about innocent in man's eyes. Who is innocent before GOD's eyes? No one. God doesn't compare us to the drunk down the street who
beats his wife, He compares us to His Son. And you can't assume something is God's word to criticize Him, then immediately use the rescuing device
that it's not God's Word when you are faced with a tough question. And what about my other Q? Would you be contradicting yourself if you drank
alcohol?

And no I don't wonder, you've done what man has done for thousands of years. Created an idol. Shopped for or invented a god to your liking instead
of aligning yourself with the One true God and Creator.

We aren't talking about innocent in man's eyes. Who is innocent before GOD's eyes? No one. God doesn't compare us to the drunk down the street
who beats his wife, He compares us to His Son. And you can't assume something is God's word to criticize Him, then immediately use the rescuing
device that it's not God's Word when you are faced with a tough question. And what about my other Q? Would you be contradicting yourself if you
drank alcohol?

And no I don't wonder, you've done what man has done for thousands of years. Created an idol. Shopped for or invented a god to your liking instead
of aligning yourself with the One true God and Creator.

edit on 20-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Children are innocent in Gods eyes.... yet we can find passages in the bible where "the lord" commands people to kill men women and children...

And i don't assume its Gods word... technically you do... which is why im pointing out where "Gods word" contradicts itself... because as you
said, the law of non-contradiction set forth by the Gods of wikipedia commands no contradictions are allowed in sound logic. This Gods commandment
said Thou shall not "murder" if you want to be precise... yet murdering is a regular thing for this so called God...

The one true God is not the same as the one in the OT as you believe... So techinically i could say the same about you... but this isn't about
us... is it

First of all, by definition God cannot "murder", He isn't a human. Secondly, according to the OT God only commanded entire tribes to be wiped out of
Nephilim and Rephaim. They were not human, but demigod offspring of fallen angels. (Genesis 6)

Please answer my question, would you be contradicting yourself if you drank alcohol? And Jesus affirmed the God of the OT was His Father. He quotes
the most from Deuteronomy of the Torah.

And not entirely accurate, you're about 85% there. The LONC states A and B both cannot be true and false in the same contextual relationship
simultaneously. Example. There cannot be only One God and many gods. Either one of those two is correct, or neither are correct. Both claims
cannot be true simultaneously in the same contextual relationship because they contradict.

Ahh... but if he can "inspire" a book... he can also inspire murder...

Secondly, according to the OT God only commanded entire tribes to be wiped out of Nephilim and Rephaim. They were not human, but demigod
offspring of fallen angels.

According to the bible a snake spoke to eve as well...

Perhaps when and if evidence is found that these "demigod" creatures existed... that arguement might hold a little weight... In reality, one faction
wanted another factions land/resourses, and more power... so they took by force and killed everyone associcated because one leader claimed to speak to
God.

Please answer my question, would you be contradicting yourself if you drank alcohol?

Unfortunatly do as i say not as i do isn't a defence for breaking your own commandment... I suppose the best defence is that God can do what he
wants... Yet if that was the case a true God would just blast who he wanted dead... not make his children do it for him...

And Jesus affirmed the God of the OT was His Father. He quotes the most from Deuteronomy of the Torah

meh... only select passages... likely because he knew what was correct and what wasn't...

And not entirely accurate, you're about 85% there. The LONC states A and B both cannot be true and false in the same contextual relationship
simultaneously. Example. There cannot be only One God and many gods. Either one of those two is correct, or neither are correct. Both claims cannot be
true simultaneously in the same contextual relationship because they contradict.

So you don't see the trinity being a contradiction of that exact thing?

Ill do the rest tomorrow. But as far as the Trinity goes, (and no more red herrings, one topic at a time), I think of white light. It's made up of
3 primary colors yet it's one color of light, white. Also, i've told you this already, you either weren't paying attention or you rejected it
before investigating it yourself. The Hebrew word for "one" in the Shema is the same Hebrew word used when it says Adam and Eve became "one"
flesh. They were one in unity, purpose and will.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.